Joanne Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 I don't believe in global overpopulation. Specific area overpopulation, yes. Some areas can sustain it's population where as others cannot due to resources or political mess. On a global level, there are enough resources to sustain life, it is a matter of finding ways to spread the resources to a global population that seems to be the problem. Saying that an area in Africa(or where ever) is overpopulated and the people are starving there should be the deciding factor of someone in a country/area with enough to have a child is just ridiculous. Sigh. "overpopulation" isn't about square footage and people. It's about the usage and resources of the entire earth and the quality of life that is predictive based on those resources. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moxie Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 Gosh, what a depressing thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jen in NY Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 I don't believe in global overpopulation. Well, in the last 14 years, the global population has increased by 1 billion people. Every 4.5 days there are a million more of us on the planet. At *some* point there will be too many of us ... I think the question is HOW will the correction take place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldberry Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 I don't know what Michele believes, but I was referring more to the fact that God made the world to sustain everyone forever. As a caveat though, this would be under conditions where humans are living in harmony with the Earth rather than destroying it and fighting against the Earth's natural order and healing properties. The Earth was made to sustain everyone, but that would be everyone living in accord with Godly principles, and not what we are seeing now. The Earth cannot sustain the population under the current system of living. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joanne Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 As a caveat though, this would be under conditions where humans are living in harmony with the Earth rather than destroying it and fighting against the Earth's natural order and healing properties. The Earth was made to sustain everyone, but that would be everyone living in accord with Godly principles, and not what we are seeing now. The Earth cannot sustain the population under the current system of living. I remember the Christian idea of "stewardship" from when I was a Christian. We've (industrialized societies) been poor stewards in many regards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy101 Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 I agree with down the rabbit hole. There isn't an over population problem. There is a greed problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnificent_baby Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 I have no clue about her statistic (which it sounds like she admits is old and now prone to error), but her viewpoint is in response to a viewpoint that was pretty common when I was in elementary and high school. I remember them telling us the world was becoming overpopulated, look at the square footage, not enough room, soon we'll be living under the sea, blah blah. Then I started traveling and wondering what in the world they were smoking! And the incredible thing is, a very intelligent person I was friends with bought into it and actually swore she'd never have kids to protect the world! So which is worse, a woman with a really basic education holding a sincere view very nicely, or a much higher educated person who's gullible enough to believe there's not enough room on the planet for more kids? Oh yeah, and the world is getting smoking hot too. It's amazing what we can be educated into believing. ;) Totally agree. Frankly, not sure why we pick on the Duggar family so much on this board. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmoira Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 I agree with down the rabbit hole. There isn't an over population problem. There is a greed problem. That's pat. And the solution? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarlett Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 That's pat. And the solution? Less greed. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarlett Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 Totally agree. Frankly, not sure why we pick on the Duggar family so much on this board. I blame it on her hair. Seriously though, I have no idea why people hate on them so much. I'd rather that energy be expended to help kids like the 2 yo mentioned on the news this morning......she was so starved she will probably die....flat head from being left in bed....and she was removed from that same home a year or so ago...suppose to be under the care of dhs.,...but clearly she fell through the big ugly crack in the system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmoira Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 Less greed. :) Easily said when living in the country with the highest per capita usage of most resources. Are you then in favor of rationing and global redistribution of money and/or resources? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarlett Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 Easily said when living in the country with the highest per capita usage of most resources. Are you then in favor of rationing and global redistribution of money and/or resources? I am in favor of acknowledging it is a problem too big for humans to solve. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moxie Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 That's pat. And the solution? Do you really think there is a solution? There are many small things that can be done that will help the situation but no solution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jen in NY Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 I agree with down the rabbit hole. There isn't an over population problem. There is a greed problem. But..... in some places in the world there are already too many people to live comfortably. There are conflicts because there isn't enough land to be passed on to all of the children to farm ... there isn't enough water .... there isn't *enough*.... how is that a greed problem? Some societies have simply outpopulated the life that used to work for them... Very roughly 1/8 of the earth's surface is arable. (3/4 is ocean...) (cool graphic here: http://www.farmland.org/Flash/appleEarth.html) 97.5% of the water on earth is salty. That leaves 2.5% fresh... lots of which is already polluted or contaminated. You really can't forsee a time when uncontrolled exponential population growth would become a problem, and when conflicts over resources would be more widespread? Even if we all share and share alike, *if* we keep reproducing at the rate we are now, eventually there simply will not be enough land for us to feed ourselves or water for us to drink. The correction will come in the form of disease, or starvation, or war, or some as yet undreamed of combination of solutions. What are the odds they will be pleasant solutions? The book Collapse by Jared Diamond is very informative about how this happens at the scale of civilizations, if reading more about it interests you. Disclaimer: Please know that my tone is not accusatory or 'angry' in any way. I sincerely tried to word this in a friendly way, but I know that things can 'sound' different than how I think they sound in my head. :) Just trying to have a 'chat' about a subject that interests me quite a bit. :) (This is why my post count is so low after all these years.... I don't like conflict. :) ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmoira Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 Do you really think there is a solution? There are many small things that can be done that will help the situation but no solution. Well, if population control, even noncoercive, is off the table, and greed is the problem anyway, it would be nice to hear some suggestions as to how to deal with the problem of resource allocation and management in with an eye to the greed problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Down_the_Rabbit_Hole Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 Sigh. "overpopulation" isn't about square footage and people. It's about the usage and resources of the entire earth and the quality of life that is predictive based on those resources. Not understanding the sigh... If you read my post that is what I said. There is enough resources on this Earth, the misuse and political mess to spread the resources are the problems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moxie Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 Well, if population control, even noncoercive, is off the table, and greed is the problem anyway, it would be nice to hear some suggestions as to how to deal with the problem of resource allocation and management in with an eye to the greed problem. I'm curious what "population control, even non coercive" looks like. Are you asking for a solution to greedy humans? There always has been and always will be people and societies that take too much. There will always be greedy dictators. As concerned individuals, we can do small things but that's all. There is no "solution". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Down_the_Rabbit_Hole Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 Well, in the last 14 years, the global population has increased by 1 billion people. Every 4.5 days there are a million more of us on the planet. At *some* point there will be too many of us ... I think the question is HOW will the correction take place. You were quick to point out the increase but what about the deaths? How many per year die due to old age, sickness, murder, disaster, war, and genocide? The 'too many people on the earth' argument leads to governments who start playing god: saying certain people can have children, others cannot, how many you can have, what gender, DNA screening, gender control, even a cap on age, blah, blah, blah..... Listen to the medical chatter now, it is all being discussed. Just recently I witnessed age discrimination and denying of healthcare because a person was "too old" in the eyes of the medical profession and insurances to merit any help. This happened 10 years ago when the same person went in for medical care, and 5 years before that. Instead of looking at the number of people look at the resources and how best to distribute them globally...THAT is how it will be taken care of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpecialClassical Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 Sigh. "overpopulation" isn't about square footage and people. It's about the usage and resources of the entire earth and the quality of life that is predictive based on those resources. Joanne, I'm not sure of you realize this, but you come across as condescending with responses such as this. With the sigh and then the explanation that repeats points that the above poster mentioned, it leaves me thinking you are rolling your eyes in superiority. Perhaps that is not your intention, but it " sounds" that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldberry Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 I remember the Christian idea of "stewardship" from when I was a Christian. We've (industrialized societies) been poor stewards in many regards. I agree. The way some Christians have explained "stewardship" to me doesn't sound as much like stewardship as it does "ownership without any accountability". ETA: I had never heard that explanation until I read an odd editorial about how the movie The Lorax promoted an unchristian view of the environment. :huh: :huh: Stewardship: the activity or job of protecting and being responsible for something Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pawz4me Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 Sincere question for those of you who slam the U.S. for being the highest per capita consumers of resources -- How do you sort that out when considering we are also the leading exporter of food in the world? Growing so much food requires water and energy. Would the world population as a whole be better off if we cut our consumption of those resources, which would of course result in much less available food? Note that I'm not arguing that the average American probably could (and should) be more careful with our resource consumption. But the criticism w/o some context kind of rubs me wrong. And maybe I'm way off base with my assumption that at least some of our usage should be attributed to the amount of food produced and exported. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy101 Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 Easily said when living in the country with the highest per capita usage of most resources. Are you then in favor of rationing and global redistribution of money and/or resources? We do ration already. The wealthy get what they want and the poor get to fight over what's left. If we are going to ration, let's at least do it based on more than who can afford to indulge their greed the most. And there are many options to expand resources or use alternative resources, but they aren't funded, usually for selfish wealth reasons. Big oil isn't all that thrilled with wind farms. Monsanto claims to be doing great work helping third world countries by selling them the bargain of one time seed crops. We have many cities without safe pedestrian or biking or reliable transportation options, making owning and using multiple vehicles in a family a necessity. The list goes on. There is actually quite a bit that could be done to improve resource use or create better living conditions both for us and globally, but they aren't getting done because of selfishness. Innovation, genuine innovation, needs to be encouraged instead of only letting what is profitable to the already biggest profiter being given a chance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QueenCat Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 I blame it on her hair. Seriously though, I have no idea why people hate on them so much. I'd rather that energy be expended to help kids like the 2 yo mentioned on the news this morning......she was so starved she will probably die....flat head from being left in bed....and she was removed from that same home a year or so ago...suppose to be under the care of dhs.,...but clearly she fell through the big ugly crack in the system. I don't hate them....... but I find discussing their lifestyle interesting because it is so different from the norm. I enjoy learning about how others live and why they make the choices they do. I also have a great interest in the mafia........ probably why I chose sociology as a major :001_smile: . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JumpyTheFrog Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 How do you sort that out when considering we are also the leading exporter of food in the world? We became a net importer of food (both in terms of dollars and volume) in the last 7-8 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jen in NY Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 You were quick to point out the increase but what about the deaths? How many per year die due to old age, sickness, murder, disaster, war, and genocide? It is a population growth rate, not a birth rate. According to the UN, there are ~360,000 births per day, 151,600 people die each day. = approximately one million more people on the planet every 4.5-5 days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarlett Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 I don't hate them....... but I find discussing their lifestyle interesting because it is so different from the norm. I enjoy learning about how others live and why they make the choices they do. I also have a great interest in the mafia........ probably why I chose sociology as a major :001_smile: . I loved discussing them too. But every discussion brings out at least a few haters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*Michelle* Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 We became a net importer of food (both in terms of dollars and volume) in the last 7-8 years. My understanding is that was mainly due to increased demand for exotic spices, cheeses, wines, and beers. As far as things like grains, we're still the largest exporter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarlett Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 Because they are pimps who prostitute their babies on television for money? Because it's easy to pick on a huge, glaring show full of ignorance and absurdity? They are not one iota different than Honey Boo Boo and her show, and that's had some lovely discussion here, lol.Because they have such ugly hair, and people on this board love to say snarky things about current styles? Because much of this chat board is full of gossip and arguments and trite talk, and that seems to be pretty popular?Very harsh description. I don't see them like that at all. They already had most of those kids before tv came calling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarlett Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 So why doesn't god solve it for them? Too big for us to solve--what a depressing attitude to have. Give up, it's no use. Thinking about saying that to the face of a human suffering the most horrible things makes me want to vomit. Well that would not be the sum of what I would say to someone IRL. But the rest of it is a Bible discussion which is pointless on this board. And when I am facing a person suffering in any way I do whatever is in my power to help. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pawz4me Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 We became a net importer of food (both in terms of dollars and volume) in the last 7-8 years. Source? The only reputable thing I can find goes back to a blip in 2004 and references high-end beer, wine and spices, as Michelle said. But I'm referring to volume exports of basic food staples that are used to feed much of the world (grains, etc.). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmoira Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 I'm curious what "population control, even non coercive" looks like. Another poster linked a new book that looks at how this works (and doesn't) in a number of places around the world, Countdown by Alan Weisman. He was on Science Friday last week and on Quirks & Quarks the week before (the links are to the audio feeds). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy101 Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 So why doesn't god solve it for them? Too big for us to solve--what a depressing attitude to have. Give up, it's no use. Thinking about saying that to the face of a human suffering the most horrible things makes me want to vomit. Oh geez. Whatever. There are many things in the world that we accept as eternal problems of the human condition. The seven deadly sins for starters. Saying something is not permanently solvable or solvable within moral limits is not at all the same as saying to give up and to hell with it all. I'm 100% sure I will have to change another poopy diaper today, but acknowledging that poop is a part of life with humans doesn't mean I'm not going to change the next diaper or think changing diapers is pointless. Sometimes there isn't an ethical solution, but there is ethical means of mitigating difficulties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jen in NY Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 Another poster linked a new book that looks at how this works (and doesn't) in a number of places around the world, Countdown by Alan Weisman. He was on Science Friday last week and on Quirks & Quarks the week before (the links are to the audio feeds). Yes! It was me and he was fascinating. I can't wait to get my hands on it. I have to leave, but I wanted to say before I go... my daughter's Human Geography textbook was really eye opening to me about this kind of topic in general. (Not overpopulation per se, but resource allocation, population shifts, etc.) http://www.amazon.com/Human-Geography-People-Culture-Edition-ebook/dp/B008Z2LKPO/ref=dp_kinw_strp_1 I think you can buy slightly older editions inexpensively from amazon. Cheers, all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mergath Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 I blame it on her hair. Seriously though, I have no idea why people hate on them so much. I'd rather that energy be expended to help kids like the 2 yo mentioned on the news this morning......she was so starved she will probably die....flat head from being left in bed....and she was removed from that same home a year or so ago...suppose to be under the care of dhs.,...but clearly she fell through the big ugly crack in the system. I don't hate her, but it does bother me that she goes on trying to have more and more and more babies, endangering her own life (and given what happened with the last two pregnancies, I think it's safe to say that at this point she is, in fact, putting herself at risk) instead of enjoying the children she has. That's a lot of children that will be left motherless (and a lot of teenage girls that will be stuck raising their siblings for years and forgoing their own lives) if the next pregnancy also has complications and she dies. I'm not saying she shouldn't be allowed to do it or anything like that, but I wish she'd use a little common sense, and I wish the people around her would recognize that she probably has some degree of addiction to being pregnant. I don't know why else someone with nineteen children would be actively trying for another at nearly fifty years old. I think that's part of the problem with seeing babies as gifts given to you by God. If you read the Duggar's first book, they think babies are some kind of reward/punishment system used by God, so if she can't have any more babies, I'm sure she'll feel like she's being punished again, instead of seeing it as the perfectly normal end of one stage of her life. Plus her entire identity is wrapped up in being pregnant. The people around her need to step up and be supportive and help her realize that it's okay to stop, but every time you see them, the kids are all chirping, "Oh, we'd love it if she had another baby! We love babies! I want a girl this time!" They're reinforcing a vicious cycle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mergath Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 Not understanding the sigh... If you read my post that is what I said. There is enough resources on this Earth, the misuse and political mess to spread the resources are the problems. And the first step in making sure that those resources are distributed evenly enough for everyone to survive the exploding population is for us to start shipping large parts of our surplus water and food to other parts of the world. Somehow, though, I doubt people in developed countries are going to want to have to make due with less. So we'll all just shut our eyes and plug our ears and hum, while we continue to deny the existence of overpopulation and a lack of world resources, and yell that we'll have all the babies we want and water our lawns as much as we want, thank you very much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmoira Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 And the first step in making sure that those resources are distributed evenly enough for everyone to survive the exploding population is for us to start shipping large parts of our surplus water and food to other parts of the world. Somehow, though, I doubt people in developed countries are going to want to have to make due with less. Heck, look at the outcry on this board at the slightest hint of "socialism" wrt capital and resources even solely within the borders of the US. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldberry Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 Because they are pimps who prostitute their babies on television for money? Because it's easy to pick on a huge, glaring show full of ignorance and absurdity? They are not one iota different than Honey Boo Boo and her show, and that's had some lovely discussion here, lol.Because they have such ugly hair, and people on this board love to say snarky things about current styles? Because much of this chat board is full of gossip and arguments and trite talk, and that seems to be pretty popular? So why doesn't god solve it for them? Too big for us to solve--what a depressing attitude to have. Give up, it's no use. Thinking about saying that to the face of a human suffering the most horrible things makes me want to vomit. Somebody having a bad day? Maybe a break from the board might help you not be so disgusted by our "gossip and trite talk"... Although discussing the population issue doesn't seem that trite to me..go figure! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldberry Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 And the first step in making sure that those resources are distributed evenly enough for everyone to survive the exploding population is for us to start shipping large parts of our surplus water and food to other parts of the world. Sadly, there are people in our own country still not having enough food. If we can't resolve that, how can we resolve the issues of other nations? Just goes to show that even with sufficient supply, the darker side of human nature will always come into play. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Down_the_Rabbit_Hole Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 And the first step in making sure that those resources are distributed evenly enough for everyone to survive the exploding population is for us to start shipping large parts of our surplus water and food to other parts of the world. Somehow, though, I doubt people in developed countries are going to want to have to make due with less. So we'll all just shut our eyes and plug our ears and hum, while we continue to deny the existence of overpopulation and a lack of world resources, and yell that we'll have all the babies we want and water our lawns as much as we want, thank you very much. I am not saying make those who have live on less....I am saying take the extra, the part that is going to waste and distribute it. There are fields of food going to waste because of government involvement. If those fields were harvested and the food sent to those in need then who will feel the "less" you speak of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmoira Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 Sadly, there are people in our own country still not having enough food. If we can't resolve that, how can we resolve the issues of other nations? Just goes to show that even with sufficient supply, the darker side of human nature will always come into play. So, we can't share resources because it doesn't work. (I don't know where you stand on the following, so this is not directed at you.) But everyone should keep having kids at a rate such that global population continues to increase because that's not the problem. Greed is the problem. But we can't solve it because we're human. And giving or using family planning assistance is unethical. So everyone, keep having kids at a rate such that global population continues to increase. Because it's not the problem. My head hurts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mergath Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 Sadly, there are people in our own country still not having enough food. If we can't resolve that, how can we resolve the issues of other nations? Just goes to show that even with sufficient supply, the darker side of human nature will always come into play. And yet we still have far, far more than many other parts of the world. So if we can't even afford to feed all our people, and there are people starving to death on a daily basis in other place, it stands to reason there aren't enough resources to go around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catwoman Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 Well, color me disappointed. I know that KK specifically mentioned in the thread title that this was a serious question, but I was still hoping she was going to ask how Michelle Duggar got her kids to dress pretty much alike every day and manage to look so gosh-darned tidy all the time without a single one of those kids ever whining about it. But no. It wasn't about that at all. Oh sure, I figured there would be some talk about Michelle's hair or whether or not she should pack it in and stop having children (and seriously, who would want to keep having s*x with Jim-Bob all the time anyway? :ack2: The man is about as sexy as a turnip.) and I knew someone would mention the money thing, but I wasn't counting on it turning into a depressing discussion of world over-population. I mean, I assumed it was going to be a trainwreck, just on the basis of the word "Duggar" being included in the thread title, but I was hoping it would be more fun. Right now, it's not even a trainwreck. How disappointing. I'll stop in again later in case people start talking about the important stuff, like Michelle's fashion choices. I wouldn't want to miss that. ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mergath Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 I am not saying make those who have live on less....I am saying take the extra, the part that is going to waste and distribute it. There are fields of food going to waste because of government involvement. If those fields were harvested and the food sent to those in need then who will feel the "less" you speak of. Those "fields of food" wouldn't be nearly enough to wipe out hunger across the planet. I don't think you realize just how bad the lack of fresh water and global hunger really are. According to worldhunger.org, there are 870 million people in the world who are chronically undernourished. Harvesting a few more fields isn't going to make a dent in that. And 780 million people in the world don't have access to clean water. It's horrible, but there just isn't enough to go around. And I honestly don't know what to do about it. (Though making it illegal for US companies to go to undeveloped countries and suck up an entire village's water supply to make soda, or eating less meat so other countries will use arable land for growing food instead of raising cattle to ship to the US, would be a good start. :glare: ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatHomeschoolDad Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 There is a great article here referencing a TED talk by Louise Leaky (yes, of that Leaky family), that talks about our ingrained ideas of protonatalism: "The current bedrock of social and cultural conditioning rests in pronatalism - a set of beliefs that is pro-birth, encourages reproduction and exalts the role of parenthood. Pronatalism promotes the denial of the realities of population growth today." It makes sense, even in light of the "quiverfull" movement, of which the Duggers are a part. Taking it a step further, if you're world view is already somewhat insular, adding 20 kids would seem to push you farther down that insular path past the point where introspection and questioning are possible (if they ever were it begin with). We are still tribal, and hang out with the tribe members who agree with us. Then again, it could also be that Michelle is addicted to babies, or that she feels a certain martyrdom she must fulfill. The psychological possibilities are boggling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I.Dup. Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 You are right. It is always the privileged minority from the rich West that feels overpopulation is not a problem. Of course, if the West started reducing consumption of natural resources to the level of those people in Asian and Africa would could sustain growth much, much longer. The problem is the West consumes FAR in excess of their proportional natural resources. Come to India and see if over population and resource strain is a problem. So you are saying that those of us in the U.S. having larger than average families and living our normal lives are somehow responsible for the lack of water and natural resources in India? I'm sorry if that sounds ignorant, I am trying to understand how you bringing up the West and pointing to the lack of resources in India are related. Speaking of the huge waste prevalent in the west seems to me to be a problem of big business greed and not everyday families living their lives. I think it's even too much to blame the Duggars for the starving kids in India or Africa. :huh: Not that anyone has directly blamed them, but that seems to be where this is going, as if the lack of natural resources in some parts of the world are the fault of those in the west having large families? Seriously, how many families in the west have more than 2 kids? Less than 1%? We have a very large family, compared to the norm. Our town gets its water from a lake that is refilled each year by melting snow. We are blessed to live in an area where there is snow available. Should "we" (general we) limit our family size for the purpose of somehow helping kids in Africa or India by osmosis? Those "fields of food" wouldn't be nearly enough to wipe out hunger across the planet. I don't think you realize just how bad the lack of fresh water and global hunger really are. According to worldhunger.org, there are 870 million people in the world who are chronically undernourished. Harvesting a few more fields isn't going to make a dent in that. And 780 million people in the world don't have access to clean water. It's horrible, but there just isn't enough to go around. And I honestly don't know what to do about it. (Though making it illegal for US companies to go to undeveloped countries and suck up an entire village's water supply to make soda, or eating less meat so other countries will use arable land for growing food instead of raising cattle to ship to the US, would be a good start. :glare: ) It really does make me distressed to think of the starving and dying people throughout the world. :crying: I just don't see how the less than 1% of the population of the U.S. having large families is somehow responsible for that. :confused1: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I.Dup. Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 and has anyone ever wondered how we have survived this long when the earth has never gotten fresh water since its beginning? We have been somehow recycling the relatively small amount of fresh water available here since the beginning of time. How does that work? I mean, I know about precipitation but how does the water get filtered enough to continually use over and over again by generations? Or can I just not think of the obvious answer since I haven't slept in months and haven't had my caffeine yet today? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldberry Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 And yet we still have far, far more than many other parts of the world. So if we can't even afford to feed all our people, and there are people starving to death on a daily basis in other place, it stands to reason there aren't enough resources to go around. But the reason people are starving here is not because we can't afford it or because there are not enough resources. It's because of greed, value judgments, etc. I am not saying that insufficient resources don't cause the problem in other areas. Only that if we resolved the problem of resources (either by creating/sharing resources more efficiently OR by limiting population in line with existing resources - which are really the only two options) even THEN the problem would not be solved. The problem is bigger and more complicated, and based in the faults of human nature. That is not saying we shouldn't do anything. We should still do what we ourselves feel is the most responsible choice (limiting family size, supporting charities, decreasing consipicuous consumption, etc.). We shouldn't ignore the issue. But I'm not going to say "population control is the answer so everybody should do it, even if they feel very strongly about having a family" because there is no SINGLE answer obvious enough to try to force that on everybody. Neither would I mock someone who decides that not having children is the best way for them to contribute. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jen in NY Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 and has anyone ever wondered how we have survived this long when the earth has never gotten fresh water since its beginning? We have been somehow recycling the relatively small amount of fresh water available here since the beginning of time. How does that work? I mean, I know about precipitation but how does the water get filtered enough to continually use over and over again by generations? Or can I just not think of the obvious answer since I haven't slept in months and haven't had my caffeine yet today? Well, for one thing, even 200 years ago we still only had ~1 billion people on earth. Now there are 7 billion. Same amount of water... ETA: Sorry I think I answered a question I thought you were asking... namely how can we have a water supply problem now when we haven't before. As for how the water cycle works... http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/earthguide/diagrams/watercycle/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Down_the_Rabbit_Hole Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 Those "fields of food" wouldn't be nearly enough to wipe out hunger across the planet. I don't think you realize just how bad the lack of fresh water and global hunger really are. According to worldhunger.org, there are 870 million people in the world who are chronically undernourished. Harvesting a few more fields isn't going to make a dent in that. And 780 million people in the world don't have access to clean water. It's horrible, but there just isn't enough to go around. And I honestly don't know what to do about it. (Though making it illegal for US companies to go to undeveloped countries and suck up an entire village's water supply to make soda, or eating less meat so other countries will use arable land for growing food instead of raising cattle to ship to the US, would be a good start. :glare: ) So why bother if there will be no dent in the problem? Why should we even try, according to you it will be a waste. I say even if one family is kept from starving then it makes a difference. My proposal was not meant to be the one and only "golden answer". It is meant to be one of many things we can do to help the masses of starving. Also I am about to vomit from all the evil west talk being thrown about here. Yes there are SOME from the west who hurt but newsflash there are SOME from other countries that are doing worse. Go cry a river elsewhere about the "rich, wasteful americans and how they have hurt the global masses. I would love it if America would just pull back and not lift anymore fingers to to help thiose who will take as they spit curses at us. Next up will be how the whites and the republicans are the cause for world hunger. To all you who have a problem with the evil west, get a grip. I am an American white. I am republican. I am a Christian...the big three strikes....guess because I was able to feed my children a nurishing meal plus a cookie as we sat out on our green lawn enjoying the cool weather, many families will starve. How bad of me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pawz4me Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 Maybe I too am ignorant on this subject, but I've been puzzling as to how my conserving water will help other areas where water is in short supply. As far as I know, any water I conserve is just going to sit in our city's reservoir waiting for someone else on the same water system to use it. Or it's going to evaporate and once again become part of the water cycle. My guess is if that happens, that bit of water vapor is unlikely to find it's way to India or Africa and fall on an area where water is in such short supply. So . . sure, if water were in short supply here (it isn't) then my conservation would certainly help. But how does it help someone half a world away? As far as "extra" water being shipped across the globe -- certainly I guess that's possible, if you're just talking about getting enough water for people to drink to keep them alive. But routine shipping of water to meet other needs (washing, agricultural use, etc.) would be astronomically expensive, I would guess. Where is the money going to come from to pay for it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.